K-MART CORPORATION, APPELLANT,
v.
JESSIE NASONI, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Florida appellate court reversed an order requiring employer to pay for a third medical evaluation absent conflicting medical evidence or inadequate treatment.
An employer need not bear the expense of a third physician's evaluation absent a conflict in medical evidence or a finding that initial treatment was inadequate.
[1] An employer's obligation to provide medical evaluation under workers' compensation law does not extend to a third physician's examination absent conflicting medical evide…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceK-Mart initially provided medical treatment for the claimant's thumb injury and authorized and paid for a second physician evaluation at claimant's co…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Judicial Authority cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellant challenges the JIC’s order directing the employer to provide examina [*CMII] tion, evaluation, and recommendations relative to future treatment for the claimant.
The record reflects that the employer initially furnished medical treatment and, when claimant’s counsel requested an evaluation by a second physician of the claimant’s choice, his services were also authorized and paid for by the employer. The issue presented is whether the judge can require the employer to bear the expense of another evaluation by yet a third physician, in the absence of a conflict in the medical evidence. We believe not. There has been no allegation that the remedial treatment furnished was inadequate or otherwise inappropriate. The order appealed makes no such finding, but is apparently based upon the judge’s desire to have a third evaluation in light of the claimant’s assertion that she continues to experience pain in the injured thumb.
Section 440.-29(1), Fla.Stat., would appear to accord him such power, but the cost of such an inquiry cannot, in this instance, be charged to the employer. Lu-Mar Enterprises, Inc. v. Mazur, 8 FCR 248 (1974). The order is accordingly reversed insofar as it directs that the employer provide examination, evaluation and recommendations relative to future treatment for the claimant by Dr. Alexander Angelides.
McCORD, SHAW and WENTWORTH, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Berry Corp. & Commercial Risk Mgmt. v. Smith, 576 So. 2d 1366 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991)…he independent medical examination. § 440.25(3)(b), Fla.Stat. (1987).2 Sanlando Reprographics v. Vidimos, 545 [*1368] So. 2d 397 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989); Amoco Container Company v. Singh, 418 So. 2d 395 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982); K-Mart Corporation v. Nasoni, 377 So. 2d 821 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979); Lu-Mar Enterprises v. Mazur, 8 FCR 248 (1974). In this case, there was no conflict in the medical evidence presented at the initial merits hearing. Thus, the judge of compensation claims erred in ordering an independent medical…
-
Bradley Constr. & Se. Fire Ins. v. White, 457 So. 2d 547 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984)…a claimant’s subjective complaints of pain; since a mere subjective assertion on a claimant’s part cannot create conflict in the medical evidence. Amoco Container Co. v. Singh, 418 So. 2d 395 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982), citing K-Mart Corporation v. Nasoni, 377 So. 2d 821 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979). Here, the E/C assert, claimant was treated by two board-certified physicians who both released claimant to work as of June 1983, with no restrictions and a finding that claimant suffered from no permanent impairments. We find th…1 / 2
-
Amoco Container Co. & Amoco Oil Co. v. Mohabeer Singh, 418 So. 2d 395 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982)…restrictions. Absent a conflict in the medical evidence, the employer/carrier may not be required to bear the expense of an evaluation by an additional physician based merely on claimant’s assertions of continued pain. K-Mart Corporation v. Nasoni, 377 So. 2d 821 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979); Lu-Mar Enterprises, Inc. v. Mazur, 8 FCR 248 (1974). Instead, claimant must demonstrate that such further medical evaluation and/or treatment is reasonably required by the nature of the injury or the process of recovery. Bryant…
Previewing 3 of 9 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence